Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.
Apple really missed the boat with podcasts. They should have done what Youtube did. Remember when they actually had tools to make podcasts, publish them...but not monetize them? Just turn on ads, that's all they had to do. But Youtube figured it out and Apple didn't.

Thanks Timmy Cook. Go back and count your money while you still have it.
Podcasts are monetized through advertising. And how is YouTube a successful model? Google has spent millions to develop original content and YouTube stars and they have nothing to show for it. Podcasts don't use nearly as much bandwidth as YouTube but that's mostly because they are mostly audio but that doesn't mean they don't generate lots of money and content. I don't know anyone over the age of 15 that considers YouTube a real content network. Kids love it but they move on to the next thing so fast, there's no future in it.
 
if anything, threshold would be two minutes. if it's shorter than two minutes, i would never bother airplaying to a TV. if it's longer than two minutes and it takes less than 10 seconds to make it appear on a bigger screen, i'd do it. if it's longer than 24 minutes, i'll never watch on a phone.

im not saying content should be two minutes long. im saying there is no difference betwen a 10 minute show and a 24 minute show (typical length of an ad-free tv show). so don't bother with that limit.

let content be as long as it is needs to be to tell a story, otherwise the quality is compromised.


Are we heading back to the early noughties with webisodes? Thought those were long dead.
 
Are we heading back to the early noughties with webisodes? Thought those were long dead.

thought the same initially, but after second thought, the problem with webisodes was a user experience issue. some phones didn't have the capability to play them. you had small low resolution displays on flip phones. you had low quality speakers. you had low speed data connections. you had exclusive episodes tied to different carriers. and to actually get these webisodes to play on these crappy phones was such a nightmare.

the user experience is largely solved today. also, a lot of content being consumed on youtube on cell phones today are very similar to webisodes back then, so the data kind of backs up the idea that there is space to explore here.
 
I agree that the idea of making a whole bunch of very expensive 10-minute films sounds like Katzenburg trying to be hip, like the kids, but nobody is complaining about seven seasons of 13 hour-long episodes of, say, Game of Thrones or Boardwalk Empire, etc. YouTube shows are maybe ten minutes long. They're made by people with names like PewtiePie.
 
Desperate to find the NEXT thing as traditional models of TV and cinema are dying...
They have no clue what young people are/will be interested in.
All they can do is follow each other with the same over-digested BS sold as "amazing ideas".
 
Waste? No way.

From a financial perspective, it was a home run. With the bill of goods to make those headphones and the profit margin they turn, it was a match made in heaven. Apple will make that money back many, many times over.
But what was the point of the acquisition? Apple didn’t need Jimmy Iovine to build a streaming music service. Things like Beats 1, Connect and exclusive content like Planet of the Aps aren’t setting the world on fire. Just because Beats headphones have high profit margins doesn’t mean it was a good acquisition.
 
I laughed when I read the quote about 10 minute episodes or 5 minute talk shows, because they already exist. Just hop in a cab in most major cities and this is exactly what you get.

I do think there is a place for short clip movies or shows, if they're good enough to hook you in and make you want to watch the next one. I loved when Stephen King put out a dime novel collection, as I could hardly wait to get the next installment.
 
I don't quite know what to make of this news. I have always been interested in how TV adapts and evolves, and our society adapts with it, sometimes to our detriment. A few things jump out at me from the quote in the article.

Katzenberg's goal is not to shrink longer-form media into a shorter format, but to create "new and different" programming that's native to mobile devices. No episode will last longer than 10 minutes, and there will be no ad breaks, with monetization coming via title sponsorships and brand integrations.

This illustrates how much things have changed from the shows of old.

I recall that talk shows of the 60s and 70s, for example, would last 90 minutes. The Tonight Show, Mike Douglas, Donahue, and many others all had a 90 minute format. The seating areas were larger, and as successive guests would take the seat next to the host, preceding guests would move down the line rather than exit the stage. This led to some great interactivity between guests, often to humorous or illuminating result. The Tonight Show in particular was known for this, as occasionally we'd be treated to the earlier version of today's "posses" gradually assembling on stage, most notably the Rat Pack or Burt Reynolds inner circle, all highlighted by Johnny Carson's genuine delight at his friends' antics. With 90 minutes of time there was plenty of time for that camaraderie to manifest, along with comedic skits and of course the introductory monologue and closing remarks.

Modern TV by comparison is becoming shallow, astonishingly so. Broadcast talk shows generally fit between 30 and 60 minutes. Deduct the commercials and those minutes of content are somewhat reduced. Reality shows are particularly repugnant, as some spend a considerable amount of time recapping the segment prior to the commercial. The HGTV shows are extremely bad with this. The old fashioned talk show panels of civilized people trading ideas and viewpoints has been replaced by rabid animals that bark over each other. The View stands out as a shining beacon of reactionary vitriol, where emotion replaces well-structured debate and the buzzword bingo is strong enough that I could play several games of that if I decided to waste my time on that show. Informational shows rarely ever offer information, and in some cases watching them could possible make the viewer stupider than when they started. The Doctors is a great example, as its basically a bunch of vapid, self-congratulatory stuffed scrubs, spouting out things that I would almost be certain they actually have no knowledge of, while they plug products and services. I have yet to see a single segment of that show where any useful information is passed to its audience, and every episode I'm burdened with viewing leaves me feeling like I've been floating down a raging river, able to reach out and touch things along the banks but unable to get a grip on them as the force of the river keeps tearing me away.

People can't be bothered to sit down and think anymore. Our meme-driven society rushes everywhere to consume, and knowledge is much increased, but wisdom doesn't seem to follow. So I guess Katzenberg, who considers himself a media savant, has determined that even shorter shows would be needed in order to drive interest. A case could be made for this, based on the old serial stories that used to be shown in theaters. I believe that in the 40s and 50s, the typical movie would be preceded by several cartoons and a newsreel or chapter of an ongoing story. Its possible that we're going to repeat those days. A serialized story could be fun, it could be interesting. But because people of that era had the capability of sitting down for an hour and absorbing things, those evolved from the 5 minute movie house serial into the hour-long serialized TV drama. Even those short serials of the golden era of film were there to be watched as an appetizer for the 90 minute movie that followed. Sometimes there was even a double feature complete with intermission. People had staying power and focus. Now, not so much.

Regarding advertising and product placement... it also illustrates how things haven't changed at all.

I understand the visceral reaction that thinking people have to product placement. In some cases it is attempted subtly but comes across as ham-handed. One that I'm particularly sensitive to is the use of the Microsoft Surface in the show Elementary. Usually there is at least a couple of instances per episode where Joan Watson seems to think its necessary to pick up a Surface and hold it up where we can all see the tiled start screen prior to her displaying a video or reading a document off it. Of course, how different is this from the old days of black and white live television? Those days of old where a particular sponsor would pay for an entire show, bookended by announcements for that product, and usually right in the middle of the show the entire cast would break the fourth wall and plug/demo the product before returning to the story like nothing happened.

I guess I'm saying the more things change the more they stay the same. I could also be saying, the more things change, the more they suck.
 
Katzenberg: I have a disruptive mobile TV platform service that will revolutionize…
Cook: (Tapping on Apple Watch to Jony) "Create disruptive mobile TV platform service"
Jony: Working on it.
Katzenberg: …only $2B investment…
Cook: Any more ideas?
Katzenberg: 8(

Haha! Exactly... =)
I wish I could remember what it was that Steve said this about; all I can remember of the story is him responding to someone’s pitch by saying: “yeah... that’s not a product- that’s a feature”.
There’s danger in this day & age in having your sole product something that could easily be rolled into someone else’s platform.
 
Don’t let eddy anywhere near this. He’d probably get Cook to waste money on it like he did with Beats.
they dont disclose financials but given the larger pipeline on which the products are now sold, and the huge margins on them, i bet it was a good financial move.
 
Jeff Katzenberg, 66 years old
Tim Cook, 56 years old
Eddie Cue, 52 years old

"Katzenberg wants to create a short-form video series ... to target 18 to 34-year-olds."
With all three born in the last century, and with Katzenberg ready for Medicare.

I am sure it is going to be a raving success. /s

Of course the 18-34-year olds were born in the last century as well. But I get your point.
 
And you STILL believe all your data and cloud is safe in the hands of this clown? Putting billions of dollars in the hands of the other clown with the orange hair?
 
They should bring him onboard...but they won't, because they are still trying to understand their own "growing interest" in TV content.
 

Katzenberg's goal is not to shrink longer-form media into a shorter format, but to create "new and different" programming that's native to mobile devices. No episode will last longer than 10 minutes, and there will be no ad breaks, with monetization coming via title sponsorships and brand integrations.

So, basically .... short-attention span theater? It's "new and different" because it caters to creating short episodes of shows for people who don't want to invest the time to sit in one place for 30 minutes to an hour to watch something with more substance. Happens to align nicely with watching on a mobile device where the small screen and need to wear a headset for decent sound quality ensures you won't sit through anything much longer. Got it.

Except the younger generation already did this with all of the YouTube stars of their own podcast shows. And as an adult with pre-teen kids into that whole thing? I'm still convinced half the reason they care about it is the realization that they, too, can broadcast / publish their own content just like the content they're watching. Theoretically, at least.... they could become the next big YouTube star. That makes the whole thing more relatable and interesting to them. Making professional, commercial content in a "view only" situation like standard TV is not going to excite them.
 
Register on MacRumors! This sidebar will go away, and you'll see fewer ads.